So Communism gets the old adage treatment of being good in theory but awful in practise. Now perhaps this is correct, but that isn't my point.
My point concerns how Laissez-Faire Capitalism is treated. Why is it not treated in a similar manner to Communism amongst the minds of the tortured masses? It is a good theory, but in practise it doesn't work (see: C19th United Kingdom).
>>932789
It works, just not the way you'd want it to.
That is true of most systems, anyway.
Communism has always ended in far nastier ways than Laissez-Fareie has.
ALso Cold war propaganda.
>>932789
>it didn't work in the 19th century United Kingdom
You mean like when they repealed the Corn Laws and Irish people weren't dying in a famine because they could import food?
Or do you mean how quality of life changed dramatically from the beginning of the century to the end of the century?
It kind of is. With the exception of a few cultists who believe 'the market' is 95% or more perfect even the most turbo-capitalist economists actually tend to lean more around 70-80% efficiency. There's a reason you'll only find people dumb enough to be AnCaps on the internet.
>>932798
You could say the same about Communism.
In the end Laissez-faire capitalism leads to crashes in the market. I'm not just talking about the Great Depression. There was a similar one in the 19th Century. The markets retracted because people couldn't pay their workers enough so they couldn't buy their goods they produced. This shit is straight up the product of Laissez-faire capitalism. That's a huge problem and case to make that it does not work.
Now Communism will lead to similar crashes and wealth being displaced to people in power. It's just that in Communism the people in power are random revolutionaries. That's the only difference.
>>932789
"good in theory but bad in practice" is something idiots say so they don't sound like idiots.
communism isn't good in theory or practice. if you don't have a price mechanism to organize factor markets, there's always going to be shortages (of final goods too).
>>932801
Bengal Famine.
>>932813
But that wasn't because Laissez-Faire , that was because the Japs conquered one of the major food source for India.
Also, should have added that Laissez-Faire mainly strikes against places the western world don't know or cares about.
Because the world is ruled by leftists, thats how they stay in power.
capitalism baits you into thinking you can reach the top on your own account
communism tells you, you are already there while you stare at empty shelfs
>>932789
Late 19th century USA is why Laissez Faire is pretty shit in practice.
>Constant stream of immigrants keeps wages stupid low
>Rich make ridiculous wealth, lower wages cuz they can
>Peeps quit cuz pay is lowered, fresh immigrant will work for even less
>Rapid industrialization makes high demand for housing
>shittily built
>windows weren't mandatory in an apartment
>To afford shitty apartment families move in together, Mexican-tier people density in every room
>Triangle Shirtwaist
Don't get me wrong, Capitalism is the best system, but it needs regulation or shitheads just take advantage of it, like every other system.
>>932879
A larger middle class developed. It was worse for lowest class/immigrants in 1899 than 1799 (for USA at least, dunno shit about Britain). If life was so good for peeps, why were so many Europeans GTFO?
>>932879
And I never said it didn't work, just that it was shitty. If Europeans weren't flooding cities it might not have been so exploitative, but it was.
>>932879
Yeah, for the small amount of middle classes. Some of the Family Photos from old Tenement Housing look practically dystopian.
Because Laissez-Faire Capitalism works in theory and in practice. Not necessarily how you personally want it to, but it works.
>>932934
>Laissez-Faire Capitalism works
It doesn't even exist, let alone work.
>>932902
>>932908
>>932914
>Muh lowest for the low
>muh poor immigrants
>m-muh waaaah
Geez what a bunch of faggots. Perhaps you can explain what was so good about farming until you died of either A:Exhaustion or B:Starvation? You assume that because it was bad, it was bad BECAUSE of capitalism. The reverse it true, by the expansion of wealth, more of it went to the lower strata of society, and allowed for the standard of living to rise.
>>932940
Standard of living didn't increase significantly until the government started meddling, you dumb capcuck. Going all out into either system is retarded.
>>932959
The fact that in 1800's Britain, the population exploded by the millions, when traditionally the country could only support 8 million people, shows that children, little boys and girls, who would have died, miraculously survived! Surely this couldn't have been capitalism right? Must have been the government!
>>932962
Probably that was more because of the discovery of cheap fertilizer (guano) that caused the market price of food to drop, rather than the increase in real wages of the lower classes. Note also that there was widespread famine when the supply of cheap fertilizer ran out.
>>932962
dumb anglo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Oh, fucking hell, mate.
19th century Britain was the craddle of capitalism. It takes decades for people to accumulate enough capital in order for their living standards to increase. And even so, those people were better off then their counterparts and ancestors who lived in rural areas. Just look at how population exploded during that period, together with literacy and scientific and cultural advancements.
I don't fully agree with laissez-faire myself, but do you care to explain why it doesn't work?
>>932789
>it doesn't work
Yes it does, unless you mean laissez-faire as in COMPLETELY free market then it is both bad in theory and in practice. The current systems in the UK, Switzerland, or US are very good examples of the versatility of capitalism, which is its best aspect.
>>932959
>le government increases standards of living maymay
Get out.
>>933031
>I don't fully agree with laissez-faire myself, but do you care to explain why it doesn't work?
Because marxist academics can't find a job in a free market. So SURELY it isn't a good system.
>>933139
Well, it might. The point is at what cost.
>>932789
Literally who says communism is good in theory?
